Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Which I did ;-)
> Which I did ;-)
> Which I didn't say explicitly but it's up there so "integrating" it just
> means load it ;-)
:-) 

Smilies aside, you didn't really... for any other than NR, anyway, and
that partially. Understand that if you want to convince a Harvester,
*you* are expected to do the homework. 

> > > * Network rewrite 
> My interpretation of the current situation was that the
> ball is in your hands (btw, this is Mike's interpretation too) and that
> "someone" (aka: the guides/harvesters) group needs to make a decision about
> whether to go forward or not on this issue.
See my other post, though it seems you've already done the job for this
one, IMO.

> > > * TrueType text style
[It provides support for beautiful fonts, as an example, you can see
Diegos look enhancements]
That wasn't hard, was it? BTW, it's too bad that this isn't the first
line of the SM packages description... you don't really expect people to
understand all that technical mumbo jumbo, right Yoshiki? ;-)

I don't think it should go into the image. Anyone differs?

[Changing from an image to a distribution will mean forks]
Tim gave part of the answer - we will have basic images for people to
download, probably at least on of which will be media rich (assuming
some Squeaker is interested in maintaining such a distribution). This is
my part - converting into a distribution has it's own strengths and
weaknesses. The world of Squeak will be integrated, but in a different
way. What exactly is a fork? when we are done, I won't be surprised if
no two people have precisely identical images. But hopefully, it will be
at least as easy to share things as it is now.

[Can't make me see how important beautiful fonts are]
> Sigh. Guess I have to find some other harvester to get this point across.
Maybe :-) However, stating in laymans terms what the package does (or in
this case, a link to a picture) would have gone a long way...

> > > * Multilingualization
> > First of all, I agree this eventually affects something that should be
> > in the base image, and probably care about this more than most, since my
> > primary language has zero support in current Squeak. And Yoshiki has
> > gone the extra mile and made it an SM package, so theoretically the
> > barrier to test it is zero. I don't understand why there's almost no
> > feedback, the null hypothesis is that nobody cares enough. In which
> > case, I tend to not want it in the image.
> 
> I completely, absolutely, and utterly disagree. This is a strategic issue.
> The "lack of feedback" as you call it (btw, there _has_ been feedback on
> Japanese) 
I wouldn't comment on this triviality, but this isn't the first time I
get the impression you don't read my posts very carefully. My exact
words were "almost no feedback". As you can surely see :-)

[It's strategic]
I do know, ask Yoshiki, or review the list archives - this work might
not be be on SM if I didn't.

Andreas, ignoring the details for a moment. Are you saying that
Yoshiki's work is more-or-less complete support for multiple languages,
missing mostly additional scripts that can be plugged in? If so, that's
news to me. Nobody, certainly not Yoshiki, has suggested it is that.
It's on SM as an Alpha package. Anyone can see that it's had lots of
thought put into it (I've read the design documents), but that's not
enough.

> These _must_ be
> present in the base image (if only for being able to leave the option for
> other scripts without going through endless hoops). 
You seem to be saying that someone interested in multlilingualization of
Squeak to the extent that he's willing to do the work needed to add a
script could be scared away by the requirement to load a package from
SM. I find that statement hard to believe.

Someone else adding another script, in a package with Yoshiki package as
prerequisite, would sound like a good reason to think about adding it to
the image. If someone requested it ;-)

> Okay here are a few more:
> 
> * URI
Sounds good. I haven't seen a review of "What do we need to do to
integrate this?". Partly because we still don't have the HTTP rewrite.
Do you know?

Daniel